“The best-known advocates of intelligent design have not attempted to advance their cause through state coercion in the schools.”

We can dispense with that argument with four words: Of Pandas and People. This book was “the first place where the phrase ‘intelligent design’ appeared in its present use” according to Pandas organizer Jon Buell – and Pandas, the first ID book, was a textbook explicitly aimed at ninth-grade biology students in public schools! (Just look at the history of where the book has been pushed, starting with Alabama and Texas, 1989-1990.) If we really wanted to pile it on, we could point out that Pandas was coauthored by Michael Behe, the most prominent scientist in the ID movement, and Stephen C. Meyer, the director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture.

Over on the blog of the Discovery Institute Media Complaints Division Judge Complaints Division, John West seems annoyed that Judge Jones didn’t pay any attention to the Discovery Institute’s list of allegedly peer-somethinged publications. West shouldn’t be criticizing the judge, however – West’s problem is that Behe and Minnich didn’t think to mention this list when they had the chance, during testimony at trial. When asked, Behe & Minnich mentioned only a few scientific publications they thought relevant – e.g., Behe & Snoke 2004, which on cross Behe admitted didn’t mention ID, and didn’t block evolution under biologically realistic conditions – but these either didn’t mention ID, or were in philosophy journals, or were review articles and not actual research. Minnich admitted that his sole publication on ID, a book chapter, coauthored by Stephen C. Meyer, was not rigorously reviewed in the same way as an actual journal article. Other DI fellows could have also could have mentioned the list as much as they liked – but unfortunately, they decided to back out of the case just before their scheduled depositions.

Or perhaps Behe & Minnich, being actual scientists, realized how vulnerable this list is to cross-examination. The court is not the same audience as some fawning blogger or clueless journalist new to the issue. For example, imagine the glint in the lawyer’s eye while asking questions like these: “Now, does ‘peer-edited’ mean the same thing as ‘peer-reviewed’?” “Is ‘peer-edited’ a standard term in academia?” “Is Rivista di Biologia a well-respected biology journal?” “One of these publications listed here is a book chapter in Mere Creation written by Kurt Wise. Could you tell us who Kurt Wise is, and what he argues for in this ‘intelligent design’ publication?”

Leaving aside the hypotheticals, given the testimony he heard at trial, does West really expect Judge Jones to ignore the testimony of the leading scientists of the ID movement which he directly observed, and instead favor amicus briefs, not subject to cross-examination, and authored by organizations whose mendacity was exposed repeatedly both during trial and in numerous pre-trial machinations? (e.g., FTE’s motions, or the DI’s interference with the expert witnesses.)

Categories:

57 Comments

In the mind of the Fundamentalists, I’d imagine, the problem with the ID Elites (i.e. the Dembski, Behe, and Santorums), is that they have totally bought into the secular premise of a separation of religion from the public school. And damn them for thinking they know what’s best for God-fearing folks. Sure, we see it in a different light: the ID Elites are ‘sneaking’ religion into secular education. But, seriously, ID as a watered down religion is pretty weak – if I wanted kids to learn how absurd Design is as an argument to God, I would want to tell them all about ID in its strict, no-God mode. In the end, I bet it is all the ‘sneaking’ and watering down of God that really gets Fundamentalists. The whole ID movement smacks of a desperate attempt to appease the Secularists at the expense of the Absolute Truth: no reference to the Book, deliberate ambiguity regarding the Designer, no answer on the Age of the Earth, etc. Since when did Ultimate Truth require ‘sneaking’ to be presented? Apply pressure at this Reverse Wedge and witness the Big Tent collapse on itself.

I don’t think the media should allow the DI to distance themselves too far from the Thomas More Law Center and the breathtaking inanity. The DI is not the victim. It is a key perpetrator. Chain them together, I say, and watch them sink.

does West really expect Judge Jones to ignore the testimony of the leading scientists of the ID movement which he directly observed, and instead favor amicus briefs, not subject to cross-examination, and authored by organizations whose mendacity was exposed repeatedly both during trial and in numerous pre-trial machinations?

I’ve decided to put Uncommon Descent into mothballs indefinitely. Although I’ve enjoyed blogging, I find it distracts from more pressing work that I need to get done. On those few occasions when I will need to blog, I’ll probably do it at www.idthefuture.com. If you want to keep track of my work, consult www.designinference.com, which has always been my main website. Also, watch for www.overwhelmingevidence.com, which I expect will provide a suitable antidote to the Dover trial (stay tuned).

You have to love Rush Limbaugh for his tenacious determination to stick to his party line rhetoric in the face of plain logic. He calls ID “a little disingenuous” on the point that it is a sneaky version of creationism, which was of course the main question in the Dover trial, but still cries “activism” when Judge Jones from an appellate court refuses to overlook that point and overturn some well-established SCOTUS precedent. In what legal universe does that line of argument make any sense? The judge is “activist” because he won’t overrule the Supreme Court?

The decision by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III to bar the teaching of “intelligent design” in the Dover, Pennsylvania public school district on grounds it is a thinly veiled effort to introduce a religious view of the world’s origins is welcome for at least two reasons.

First, it exposes the sham attempt to take through the back door what proponents have no chance of getting through the front door. Judge Jones rebuked advocates of “intelligent design,” saying they repeatedly lied about their true intentions. He noted many of them had said publicly that their intent was to introduce into the schools a biblical account of creation. Judge Jones properly wondered how people who claim to have such strong religious convictions could lie, thus violating prohibitions in the Book they proclaim as their source of truth and standard for living.

Culture has long passed by advocates of intelligent design, school prayer and numerous other beliefs and practices that were once tolerated, even promoted, in public education. People who think they can reclaim the past have been watching too many repeats of “Leave it to Beaver” on cable television. Those days are not coming back anytime soon, if at all.

Nick quoted in his entry the following lines: “One of these publications listed here is a book chapter in Mere Creation written by Kurt Wise.”
I have Mere Creation. There is no contributor there named Kurt Wise. How many such nonexisting publications has been listed in that so loudly acclaimed list?

Rather, [Santorum] said he supports “teaching the controversy” over evolutionary theory.

“As far as intelligent design is concerned, I really don’t believe it has risen to the level of a scientific theory at this point that we would want to teach it alongside of evolution,” the Pennsylvania senator said during an NPR interview in August.

But in a 2002 Washington Times op-ed article, Santorum wrote that intelligent design “is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes.”

Gramley said Santorum’s change of view is an indication that “he may be diverting from his conservative positions,” in order to court more moderate voters.

Or, Mr. Gramley, Santorum might have read the Judge’s decision and realized: “Holy bejeezus this ‘ID theory’ garbage must be radioactive toxic poison if we can’t get a conservative Bush appointee to rubber stamp it. Time to run the hell away and don’t look back.”

Opponents of ID might ask themselves whether, if they did not regard ID’s scientific claims as junk — if they concluded that ID posed a serious intellectual challenge to Darwinism — they would nevertheless forbid discussing it in the schools because it is religious.

The Professor might ask himself if religious fanatics should be permitted to teach their kids anything in public school science classrooms as long as the word “God” isn’t used explicitly.

Local creationists are spreading the news that joints (the ones that bend, not the ones you smoke) are irreducibly complex. i can’t really find anything on the net about the evolution of joints - can anyone help please?

Just a quick question: does the decision actually BAN any discussion of “intelligent design” in science classrooms? My understanding is that it said the school board couldn’t MANDATE the discussion of ID, or insert it as a scientific alternative to evolution. But if a teacher discussed the concept of “intelligent design” in a neutral way, say in a class discussion about controversies over evolutionary theory, wouldn’t that be entirely permissible?

Could it be that in the aftermath of being pulled back from presenting the failings of ID at Case Western Reserve in Cleveland that he been convinced that he should stop going rouge and close ranks with the army? The DI took control of Dembski’s speaking engagements afterall. They now seem to be controlling his blogging as well.

He wants those [science] standards to become more rigorous – and raising the standards should take priority over discussing whether intelligent design has a place in the public schools’ curriculum, he said.

“The more important point is science itself and how important it is, and we right now have adequate standards that may need to be raised. But worse: Students are not given the course work necessary to do well with those standards.”

Jeb Bush on evolution:

Does the governor believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution?

Bush said: “Yeah, but I don’t think it should actually be part of the curriculum, to be honest with you. And people have different points of view and they can be discussed at school, but it does not need to be in the curriculum.”

WOW, this guy is something. First he says he wants to improve his state’s science education.…and they way to do that, is to remove evolution from the cirriculum.

Although I’ve enjoyed blogging, I find it distracts from more pressing work that I need to get done

Dembski does work?

Also, watch for www.overwhelmingevidence.com, which I expect will provide a suitable antidote to the Dover trial (stay tuned).

Give me a freaking break.

I like how a website by a third-string blogger is going to provide an “antidote” to a legally binding court decision. If the Intelligent Design crowd’s response to Dover is going to be to retreat from reality, Dembski is absolutely leading the charge.

To this list you can add George Will, who has been quite scathing in his criticism of “intelligent design”.

I don’t think I’d call George F. Will a conservative freak, exactly. He’s highly ideological, but he does generally seem like a sane and reasonable person, at least when he’s not talking about how enthusiastic he is about killin them a-rabs.

As a Republican, this is becoming embarrassing and this issue is beginning to erode my party loyalty. I went on Rush Limbaugh’s website this morning to read the show’s transcript. For a man who claims to be right over 98% of the time, he flat out blew it on this one. For whatever it’s worth, I actually took the time to email his show in what is probably a wasted effort to educate this man.

I wrote the following…

Rush:
I have to take issue with the discussion that you had with the caller “Michael from Charlotte, Michigan” about the Intelligent Design case that was recently decided in Dover, PA. After reading the show’s transcript for that day, I have to wonder if you even bothered to read Judge Jones’ ruling?
You spoke about judicial activism, and how this case is another great example of how we need different kinds of judges. Well, Judge John E. Jones III (who was the judge for this case) was appointed to his current judicial post by President George W. Bush. He is also a Lutheran who attends church regularly. Before he became a judge, he was an active member of the Republican Party who even ran for the House. Former PA-Gov. Tom Ridge was his political mentor, and he is a friend to Sen. Rick Santorum. Yet somehow you managed to insinuate that he is a liberal judge. You were not fair to this man and I think you spoke without knowing the facts.
Judge Jones anticipated this criticism when he wrote in his decision, quote: “Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID (intelligent design), who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision in evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.” Rush, I strongly urge you to read the entire Court decision! The science teachers overwhelming opposed the ID policy, and were blackmailed into accepting it as a condition of getting their textbooks. This school board was so out of control that the voters gave them all the boot in the recent November 2005 election.
The only accurate thing you said was that “the people pushing intelligent design believe in the biblical version of creation. Intelligent design is a way, I think, to sneak it into the curriculum and make it less offensive to the liberals because it ostensibly does not involve religious overtones.” Injecting ID into the science curriculum only serves to weakening scientific thinking by substituting thinking, experimentation, and fact-finding with pseudoscience. If it is about “fairness” then we should also teach alchemy with chemistry and astrology with astronomy and physics.
Rush, within the scientific community of doctoral-educated and peer-reviewed published scientists doing both private research and university research, over 99% of them believe in Evolutionary Science. The less that 1% who subscribe to Intelligent Design have not been able to produce the necessary scientific evidence to support their hypotheses. Yet instead of doing the necessary hard work, they chose to hire an army of PR-spinners, lawyers, and lobbyists in an attempt to by-pass the normal vetting process within the scientific community. Evolution Science has over 150 years of on-going study and research behind it, consisting of countless hours of damn-hard work. Most people in the scientific and technical community are also people who have strong faith and regularly attend church services. Yet we also have an appreciation of science, and of the many things that we have learned that gives us the high standard of life we enjoy. We are strong enough in our faith not to have science shake that faith. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive.
I have no problem with teaching about God in the schools. But God and the morals that are stressed in the Bible should be taught within the realm of philosophical or theological course work. Science is not religion, and religion is not science.
I realize the flood of email that you get, so I’m stopping here. I urge you to become educated about Evolution Science, and maybe speak to some scientists about it. You will probably learn that people who believe in evolution and maintaining integrity within science are rational thinking people.

Personally, I doubt that Rush will even read this. It still made me feel better to write it.

I’m going to echo what others have written-the evangelical fundamentalists are tearing up the Republican party. Many of us who actually have some brains and know how to read other books than just the Bible are going to find it very hard to support these politicians. Perhaps we need to loose a few elections - it took a few losses to marginalize those fools such as Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson.

I was in barnes and noble an hour ago and I saw a book for sale called “MEN IN BLACK: HOW THE SUPREME COURT IS DESTROYING AMERICA”, with a foreword by Rush Limbaugh. I am not quite sure, since I didn’t read the book, but I might surmise from his endorsement of this book that from Rush’s perspective, the Supreme Court itself is activist and, by extension, any judge who won’t overrule the Supreme Court is activist as well. Neat little logical trick, isn’t it? Just define “activist” such that the only way to not be an “activist” is to… take an activist position in campaigning against the people the constitution says you work for. And then repeat your new word over and over until the news media plays along…

Cal Thomas just wants vouchers so the fundamentalists can spread state-subsidized non-science in settings of their own choosing. Don’t get too excited about his apparent acceptance of the Dover decision.

Cal Thomas Wrote:

Rulings such as this should persuade parents who’ve been waffling to take their kids and join the growing exodus from state schools into educational environments more conducive to their beliefs.

I emailed McCain’s campaign to tell them that I would consider supporting him even though I am not a Republican, but he needed to clear up this little issue first. Although I don’t want to apply a “litmus” test to a candidate, I believe this represents much more than a personal opinion or philosophy. It represents the willingness for a leader to educate him- or herself before taking a position, something I believe many of our leaders fail to do. Just like citizens, leaders must get beyond the rhetoric, beyond the politics, and beyond the media and listen to impartial experts before making up their minds.

I have decided to put Uncommon Descent into mothballs indefinitely. As I read Salvador’s latest defense of me I realized I am a failure. I cry myself to sleep most nights now. My wife lives in the other side of the house, and my children are too embarrassed to look at me. I’m so ashamed.

Well it was bound to collapse eventually. The seemingly paradoxical fact of creationism is that it evolves unimpeded, while evolution remains as an enduring truth (despite its evolutions). Each incarnation of creationism is thus fated for extinction, while what is actual continues to be itself regardless of interpretational changes and additional knowledge.

While no doubt creationism will continue to evolve, ID itself has never been very satisfying, especially to those who fear a watering down of fundamentalism. If it were winning, though, what creationists would bother arguing with it? If it seems to be losing, which is the case at least for now, what does it have to commend it? The fundamentalists can hardly be pleased with it, and the “science” is rot, so that neither the fundamentalists nor the hopeful accommodationists with science have much reason to like ID.

Bethell’s apologetics now undercut the policies that the DI has in fact helped to push. Of course virtually all of the IDists have been either tacitly or forcefully pushing ID into the schools, mainly because they utterly failed to win anywhere else (the “growing ID movement” at best was cannibalizing the creation movement). Bethell now undermines the only strategy that ID has had for winning in the past few years (good for you, Tom).

Rush’s comments are great, because the blather about how religion belongs in schools is so much cant for the dittoheads, with no traction in larger society. Santorum knows when to throw in the towel, and he even knew to cover his rear prior to the Dover decision.

Though it will likely have the least impact at large, I like Dembski’s blog capitulation the best. At just the time when he should appear energized (as he predicted the ID movement would be), he actually drops his major avenue of communication with the faithful dolts who he owes for their slavish support. Of course he might be busy like he says, but the timing signals surrender. Let Salvador do it, he seems to be saying, and no matter how tongue-in-cheek the crying himself to sleep remark was, the guy is obviously quite sensitive to criticism and defeat.

I think that everything the IDists have written since Dover has sounded flat. What could they do, bring up more great ID science to show how it truly does have promise? Well, no, it’s all just empty accusations and Behe’s silly Mt. Rushmore analogy yet again. I think a lot of them don’t want to sound like fools their whole lives. And if Dembski’s unlikely to ever admit his failure for real, he knows when to quit advertising the fact. In the end it’s obvious that he cares more about his critics than his sad little clique of sycophantic friends.

I think we may have to cut McCain, Rush, and even Bush some slack on this issue. The reality is that the vast majority of people don’t know and/or care about the creation/evolution issue. Most likely McCain, Rush, Bush, and most other politicials fall into the same category. 99% of the time, crevo is a niche issue of interest only to a relatively small portion of the population. I think people who get fired up about different kinds of red wine have immersed themselves in triviality. No doubt, wine fanatics think the same thing about us.

But occasionally, the crevo debate heats up enough for a reporter to ask a politician his take on the matter. Caught off-guard and with little knowledge of the issue to work with, the politician instinctively offers an opinion that sounds fair to most people. “Teach both sides” is made-to-order for this purpose.

I cannot fault a politician for this tactic. Most likely, he has heard of the crevo debate, but only in a vague sort of way, nor has he ever studied the science in any depth – just like the typical person. If a reporter were to surprise the same politician with a question on some obscure controversy known only to wine enthusiasts, his response would likely be the same: “I think both wines have merit.”

In summary, we have to remember that crevo is very much a fringe issue to most people and politicians. Our intense interest in the subject is uncommon, so we should not expect either politicians or the typical person to have an opinion as sophisticated as ours.

Dembski —a Legend in his own Myth.
Amazing .…..complete with a Deluge of Weasels.
The dangers of not accepting reality -nihilism
When a mad worldview unconnected with reality is shattered.… a purely objectivist.… reality free “facts” lead to no values of quality.
From Wiki:-
nihilism
This meant, to Nietzsche, looking for foundations that went deeper than the Christian *values* most people refuse to look beyond.

What this whole debate has shown is a curious fact.
Some people seem to think that reality is a subjective viewpoint and good is not a noun.

FastEddie

In summary, we have to remember that crevoOBJECTIVE TRUTH and SUBJECTIVE GOOD is very much a fringe issue to most people and politicians. Our intense interest in the subject is uncommon, so we should not expect either politicians or the typical person to have an opinion as sophisticated as ours.

I think we may have to cut McCain, Rush, and even Bush some slack on this issue.

Nope.

The so-called religious organizations which now lead the war against the teaching of evolution are nothing more, at bottom, than conspiracies of the inferior man against his betters. They mirror very accurately his congenital hatred of knowledge, his bitter enmity to the man who knows more than he does, and so gets more out of life…

Such organizations, of course, must have leaders; there must be men in them whose ignorance and imbecility are measurably less abject than the ignorance and imbecility of the average. These super-Chandala often attain to a considerable power, especially in democratic states. Their followers trust them and look up to them; sometimes, when the pack is on the loose, it is necessary to conciliate them. But their puissance cannot conceal their incurable inferiority. They belong to the mob as surely as their dupes, and the thing that animates them is precisely the mob’s hatred of superiority. Whatever lies above the level of their comprehension is of the devil.

I have been reading (trolling?) Dembski’s weblog for a while now. As the “Intelligent Design Weblog of William Dembski” I had assumed it would offer the flip side of pandasthumb.org, you know, lots of ID “scientists” and such talking about all things scientific. Am I naive or what?

I should not have been surprised to find a crew of what seems to be mostly theology students and whatnot. Every subject seemed to invite more discussions of God and scripture quoting as well as lots of admissions/proclamations of which religion various participants belong to (“I’m Catholic”, “I’m a protestant”, etc.) For the most part www.uncommondescent is a lot of nonsense, religion, and IDC propaganda. Virtually no science whatsoever.

The Dishonesty Institute is always claiming they have scores of scientists and biologists and other fancy named folk who are doing all this IDC testing and scientific work. Demsbki’s weblog would be the natural virtual water cooler and meeting place for all these IDC scientists to share their theories and testing and such. Hardly. Nothing but misguided and mislead theologians and Dembski cult members from what I can tell. Ones who do not understand science or what constitutes scientific method at all. With this in mind if I were Dembski or the Dishonesty Institute I would find uncommondescent to be a liability.

It sort of demonstrates how hollow IDC is and the people it attracts seem to lack any fundamental understanding of science and worse they simply cannot stop yapping about God and quoting scripture to one another. Anyone who wonders if IDC is religious needs to drop by the “Intelligent Design Weblog of William Dembski” and see for themselves.

Since his website has nothing to do with science and the content is OBVIOUSLY religious I wonder how much him pulling the plug was his decision and how much was decided by his handlers at the Dishonesty Institute?

“I don’t think I’d call George F. Will a conservative freak, exactly. He’s highly ideological, but he does generally seem like a sane and reasonable person, at least when he’s not talking about how enthusiastic he is about killin them a-rabs.”

“Local creationists are spreading the news that joints (the ones that bend, not the ones you smoke) are irreducibly complex. i can’t really find anything on the net about the evolution of joints - can anyone help please?
Thanks
Leon Retief
Cape Town
South Africa”

I found this:

“Evolution of synovial joints
Not surprisingly such an efficient mechanism is widespread and found in most vertebrates from lungfish onwards. In lungfish a synovial joint is found only in the jaw, with most other joints being simpler: symphyses with a cartilaginous region between them. We can imagine that this could be made more flexible if the cartilage had fluid filled holes in it, which might join up into a single cavity surrounded by a fibrocartilaginous ring. Large pressures exerted on the bones might then bring the cartilage-covered ends into contact, in conjunction with a developing system of lubrication. This is no more than a good story, but we can find most of the postulated intermediates in lower vertebrates, with the synovial joint coming into its own at about the time of the conquest of land.”

suggests that it’s only the knee *locking* mechanism that’s uniquely human and that seems (at least to a lay person like myself) to be more a matter of the shape & proportions of the same bits & pieces you find in other apes than a fundamentally different design. Glad to be corrected on this .…

Is it still irredicuble complexity by the way or is it being called something else now?

today in the Rocky Mountain News was an editorial from Paul Campos a law professor at the Univ. of Colorado. Prior to him all blatant Pro ID editorials and articles were from theology and philosophy professors at Denver Seminary and Regis Univ. or from Focus on the family. Comments appreciated to help me frame a response. It’s called “orthodoxy of a liberal sort.” A sure sign that a belief system has triumphed over its opponents is that it stops thinking of itself as a belief system at all. Instead it becomes “what every rational person knows to be the case” or “simple common sense” or more concisely still “the truth”.In other words the truly orthodox never think of themselves as orthodox. This allows them to crush all dissent to their orthodoxy with a good conscience, since what reasonable objection could there be to sincere attempts to stamp out self-evident falsehoods? Thus we have just been treated to the remarkable spectacle of liberals shouting hosannahs to the heavens in praise of of a federal court ruling that makes it illegal to even mention the existence of a dissenting point of view in a public school classroom. The court held that a Dover Pa. schoolboard violated the Constitution when it mandated that a short statement be read at the beginning of the school year to 9th grade science classes. The statement noted that students are required to learn Darwin’s theory of evolution: that there are gaps in the evidence for this theory; that an alternative theory called ID exists; that the school library contains a book that students may consult if they wish to learn about this dissenting point of view and that they are encouraged to keep an open mind about theories in general. Judge Jones ruled that the reading of this statement violates the
Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment because doing so advances “a particular version of Christianity.” Let’s be clear about what this ruling means. According to Jones it’s against the law for a public school science teacher to mention that ID theory exists, except one supposes, for the purpose of declaring it to be “not science but religion.” Another interesting feature of orthodoxy is that it tends to cause a species of mental retardation in otherwise intelligent people. Consider some of the justifications put forward that it’s a great day for truth, justice and the American way when a federal court makes it illegal for teachers to mention the existance of a dissenting point of view to their students: Science has refuted theories such as ID, because science is based on the postulate that theories such as ID cannot be true. It says a great deal about the power of orthodox thought that many people of normal intelligence are apparrently incapable of seeing whats wrong with this argument. To quote the philosopher Bertrand Russell “the metod of ‘postulating’ what we want has many advantages. They are the same advantages of theft over honest toll.” ID is not a scientific theory, because it cannot be refuted. This claim is true only in the trivial sense that no scientific theory can be refuted from within the theory itself. Consider the theory of naturalism, which undergirds the argument in the previous paragraph. Naturalism assumes that all events have natural causes. Is there any evidence that could refute this theory in the eyes of someone who adheres to it? Obviously not, since any evidence such a person examines will always and already be interpreted within a framework that excludes the possibility of a supernatural cause. Metaphysical orthodoxies about the origins of life, the universe, and everything become something other than a form of religious belief when you use the word “science” instead of the word “God.” Even more preposterously, it is asserted that requiring one particular form of metaphysical orthodoxy to be presented in public schools as THE TRUTH allows the government to maintain “neutrality” toward religion. But, as has been noted in another context, no one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Wow! I’ve read next to nothing of Mencken, so I had virtually no idea what kind of outlook he had. At first I thought I was reading good-ole Ayn Rand till I saw the credit, but, hot-damn, I’ll look him up tomorrow.
Paul

Consider some of the justifications put forward that it’s a great day for truth, justice and the American way when a federal court makes it illegal for teachers to mention the existance of a dissenting point of view to their students

Gosh, Paul, you make it sound as if the Federal Court just stopped it was doing, peered around the District, and found a school to harass.

But of course that’s not what happened at all, as Judge Jones’ opinion made perfectly clear.

I wonder if Paul would be making sarcastic statements about “truth justice and the American way” if Christians in Dover demanded that health teachers inform kids that “According to many professional Americans with high degrees and a great deal of authority, fags are going to hell if they don’t seek therapy for their disease?”

Perhaps Paul Campos has forgotten that gays are targets on the same list with scientists.

The best resource to reply to that article might be the ruling itself. Judge Jones did not prohibit teachers from mentioning ID in the classroom. Rather, he prohibited the school board from requiring that teachers refer to ID and disparage the theory of evolution (p. 138). He stated (p. 137) that it is presently “unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science curriculum”, because it’s not science. Nonetheless in the sentence prior to that he specifically says there’s no reason ID can’t be discussed.

I really appreciate Leon’s well thought out response and it is precisely these kind of intelligent and to the point answers that are guaranteed not to get published. In the end this was my reponse. It is intersting how Mr. Campos continues to pursue the lawyerization of scientific issues. The fact that there is no scientific theory of intelligent design is unimportant; what matters is that there is a dissenting point of view that can’t be tested by the scientific method and therefore cant be proven false beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps he is right and in the spirit of fairness all high school classes should be preceded by a dissenting point of view before starting. This might be an example. “You are about to begin the study of French. In Europe this language is spoken by supercilious snail eating surrender monkeys that hate America and claim to have invented brie. They have impeded our destiny to spread freedom across the Middle East and have never given us a word of thanks for saving their sorry butts in the 2nd world war. Displaying interest in their language and culture will bring suspicion upon your patriotism. We suggest you keep an open mind and consider other languages instead. Perhaps Australian”. TPFD.

“Consider some of the justifications put forward that it’s a great day for truth, justice and the American way when a federal court makes it illegal for teachers to mention the existance of a dissenting point of view to their students: Science has refuted theories such as ID, because science is based on the postulate that theories such as ID cannot be true. “

Theory of ID??? Tell us what that Theory states??? How is it tested or measured???

Science refutes ID because it’s just not science. You seem smart enough to understand that so, that leads me to believe you are just being disigenious.

I hope I havent confused anyone about my position. Steverino, I didn’t write that editorial. The author is e-mail [Enable javascript to see this email address.]. he’s a Law professor, I’m just a lowly internist. This isn’t the first time he’s attacked the credibility of scientists but the first for evolution. Usually medical science is his target. TPFD.